Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Can you take a redress against a civil servant (as they control pay rates)?
You redress your Company Commander in the first instance unless its him your complaining about, in any event but DOD personnel are under the control of the Minister and so can be the subject of a complaint under redress procedures ( or so I have been told ) .
Nothing to stop you putting in a redress, its your right to do so, and if you follow the exact proper procedure the MA are obliged to follow the rules in investigating same.
While youre there any thought of answering a,b,c above ?
You redress your Company Commander in the first instance unless its him your complaining about, in any event but DOD personnel are under the control of the Minister and so can be the subject of a complaint under redress procedures ( or so I have been told ) .
Nothing to stop you putting in a redress, its your right to do so, and if you follow the exact proper procedure the MA are obliged to follow the rules in investigating same.
While youre there any thought of answering a,b,c above ?
So in that case you’d be redressing the Minister ?
I’m not sure what you meant in your post? As in S3 wasn’t amended to take account of pay increases/decreases you mean?
The amendment you posted deals with forfeitures from pay due to court marshal
Sir I am 1052222 Pte Murphy P under "insert exact redress verbiage - theres a specific form of words to be used here to open the lock" my pay is not correct as per R5 , and S3 etc etc. signed
You redress a wrong not a person ;
to the other point
The amendment you posted deals with forfeitures from pay due to court marshal
- yes it does. As I said, the subject for the amendment does not matter and should be ignored mostly ( i.e. courtmartials are not relevant here ) This is all about process.
OK lets row back.
As I asked - why is that amendment available from that search link ? Let me ask it differently ? What is the common characteristic of any documents available from that search facility. Answer : They have all been "Laid Before the Oireachtas" - that is the only reason.
So.... why have they been laid before the Oireachtas ... the answer is in Post 72 towards the end. Have a look and tell me what you think. (we'll come back to b and c later )
by the way this is all perfectly applicable to the PDF, S3 (PDF and RDF) and R5/R6 (RDF) all deal with Pay and Gratuities - what do people think the legal basis for them being paid is ?
For clarity I have been reading the FEMPI acts and am starting to see the light. Somebody crossread with me . FEMPI 2009 http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/...evised/en/html ( and the other FEMPI acts ) and the 2017 pay act.
Very importantly PDF are covered by FEMPI but RDF are specifically not mentioned.
For clarity I have been reading the FEMPI acts and am starting to see the light. Somebody crossread with me . FEMPI 2009 http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/...evised/en/html ( and the other FEMPI acts ) and the 2017 pay act.
Very importantly PDF are covered by FEMPI but RDF are specifically not mentioned.
I'll try and find some time to read later in the week. The above makes sense. RDF pay is separate to PDF pay rather than pegged to it legislatively speaking which is the source of the issue. I'd imagine it would take some will on the part of the DoD and the Oireachtas to sort.
RDF pay IS legislatively pegged ( via Defence Forces Regulation R5 ) to PDF Pay - which is outlined in Defence Forces Regulation S3; this has never been superseded. FEMPI seems to do some severe messing by indirectly amending regulations "as if they had been amended " this is causing my brain to be severely taxed at the moment. However since RDF were never subject to FEMPI ( we are specifically left out of the definition of Public Servant) theres a black hole in the regulations.
Defence Forces Regulations are statutory instruments and have the force of secondary legislation
I know as fact that RDFRA are progressing this issue
Define "Progressing"??? My experience of RDFRA is that this is just political double talk. Unless they specifically state how it is being progressed, then it isn't being progressed very far.
Define "Progressing"??? My experience of RDFRA is that this is just political double talk. Unless they specifically state how it is being progressed, then it isn't being progressed very far.
Neither you nor I have been at meeting between RDFRA and DoD/MA....
I know for a fact that it is not being pushed under the carpet
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment